Question 30 What are your views on these preliminary suggestions on the future form of the Treasure process?

Here's what I wrote on the Treasure Act Consultation (due in today)

Question 30 What are your views on these preliminary suggestions on the future form of the treasure process? What is more important to the broadly-understood archaeological heritage is not the “long-term sustainability of the treasure process” but – of course - the long-term sustainability of the accessible parts of the archaeological record in the face of increasing and continuous Collection Driven Exploitation of a large part of it, continued tolerance of which goes right against the principles of the Valletta Convention. If it is unsustainably exploited away, the problem with the Treasure process” will disappear, along with a substantial part of the archaeological knowledge lost every time a metal detectorist removes something from an archaeological assemblage or pattern.
As for the three suggestions:
“The introduction of a process similar to that in Scotland, whereby all archaeological objects become the property of the Crown” Such a provision will no doubt be opposed by all so-called “responsible” artefact hunters and collectors.
Although concrete official figures are - not surprisingly - unavailable, recent studies estimating the scale of artefact hunting there (such as recent ones by Sam Hardy) show clearly that the Scottish system is failing to retrieve the majority of finds. If properly enforced however (arrests) the fact that there will be a choice whether to lose artefacts (collectables) or retain them clandestinely (illegally) and be unable to profit from displaying and trading them without appropriate disclaiming documentation will have the advantage of curbing artefact hunting, and bring looting of sites for mere collectables into public disrepute. As collectors point out, it will not stop illegal activity, but will make investigation and punishment easier. Artefact hunting and collecting should be marginalized and the destruction of archaeological evidence should not be treated as ‘engagement with the past’ any more than hunting swans would be ‘engagement with the natural environment’.
“strengthening educational outreach to the full spectrum of the metal detecting community in order to encourage the proactive reporting of finds and adherence to the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting and the treasure process” England and Wales (and Scotland) have been doing that for twenty years, with the effects we see today. The Portable Antiquities Scheme is recording only a small fraction (https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-revised-artefact-erosion-counter.html) Before DCMS or anyone else suggests that this is a “way forward” on the basis of PAS-spun reports of their “achievements” (“over one million objects recorded”), let the public (who foot the bill) see you commission a PROPER review of the degree to which information loss is actually being mitigated by the methods you are using. So far the concerns of those who have been questioning the propaganda of success of the PAS approach have been ignored, maybe the third decade of the Scheme is a good time to take a realistic and independent look at what actually it is achieving and what its effects on the archaeological record and public perceptions of archaeology actually are . It seems doubtful that, after twenty years of pandering and collaboration in a ‘partnership’, a substantial portion of the artefact hunters and collectors can be cajoled into “the proactive reporting of finds” which the resources of the PAS cannot cope with anyway, and “adherence to the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting” – roundly rejected already by the majority of the metal detecting community, who prefer the NCMD one, the forum discussions reveal that the main reason for that is that the contained principle in the official code that “the proactive reporting of finds” is the factor that defines “responsible detecting” is less acceptable to them than the NCMD’s, “leave gates and property as you find them ”.

As far as “adherence to the treasure process”, there are no current published official data from any review that shows that non-adherence is being practiced in England and Wales on any significant scale. Such data should be made available if they exist (or is that again another example of the compilers of this consultation document playing down another issue ? http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-usual-pro-collecting-fluffy.html).

"The introduction of a regulation as in Northern Ireland where archaeological digging of any sort (both by professional archaeologists and others) is only allowed by permit".
Yes. This is the proposal of the Valetta Convention that Britain rejected and led to the setting up of the current system. It is time to revisit this decision in the light of the fact that the current system is not working. There are a number of advantages of regulation (and documenting the regulation) of any interventions in the archaeological record of all types by means of a permit system. In this context, it is worth noting that British artefact hunters claim that what they do (and what they are concerned about) is 'preserving' the past'. Let them therefore do their searching as part of threat-driven heritage management projects with the process of data generation and finds curation according to a permit. Of course all those "responsible detectorists" will be rejecting this proposal.. which says a lot about their actual commitment to collaboration with heritage professionals in knowledge generation and preserving the past.

Question 31 Do you consider that there is a different approach to changing the process which would support its long term sustainability?
 Curb artefact hunting on archaeological sites in the whole of the British Isles, and concentrate on fully publishing to a high academic standard all the hoards and other material recovered from Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record so far (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_hoards_in_Great_Britain). The last volume of Coin Hoards from Roman Britain (CHRB) http://www.hookmoor.com/home/?page_id=226 appeared nine years ago. We are unable to keep up with the flow of new material produced by the Treasure Process, let alone any of the rest. In what way are British policies preserving archaeological sites and evidence (broadly understood to be more than just loose artefacts) or sustainable?

In fact I did not write it, as they asked for our "opinion" and then gave the window to carry the response the capacity of a postcard - so I linked to this blog post. and thus they carry on "debate' in the UK on policies on artefact hunting... bonkers.

Anyway, for what it's worth, here's my answer to the final question (a bit long, I know...):

Question 32 Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the Code and to the legislation governing the treasure process?  

A major problem with the Treasure Act is it is stubbornly object-centred and disregards archaeological (and historical) context as a source of information that is ‘consider[ed] to be of outstanding historical, archaeological or cultural importance’ (TA Art 1 2 (1)). Therefore this review is of an Act that is in no way an instrument for protecting the archaeological heritage of any part of the British Isles, but simply securing the dispersal of individual and loose found elements of that heritage to public and private collections.
It has also become a carte blanche for legitimising, promoting and encouraging Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record on a massive scale, a situation seen in no other European country, and the alleged ‘public benefits’ of which are far outstripped by the scale of destruction of archaeological evidence this Treasure Hunting is doing, day after day, week after week and year after year. Instead of the ‘sustainability of the Treasure Process’ the government and archaeological community should be more concerned about their neglect of their duty to the common heritage (set out in the Valetta Convention) to curb this wanton archaeological looting and the antiquities market it fuels. The only difference between this and the looting in the Middle East is that in Britain, there are no proper laws to stop it. We need those laws now.
It has also become a carte blanche for legitimising, promoting and encouraging Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record on a massive scale, a situation seen in no other European country, and the alleged ‘public benefits’ of which are far outstripped by the scale of destruction of archaeological evidence this Treasure Hunting is doing, day after day, week after week and year after year. Instead of the ‘sustainability of the Treasure Process’ the government and archaeological community should be more concerned about their neglect of their duty to the common heritage (set out in the Valetta Convention) to curb this wanton archaeological looting and the antiquities market it fuels. The only difference between this and the looting in the Middle East is that in Britain, there are no proper laws to stop it. We need those laws now. It has also become a carte blanche for legitimising, promoting and encouraging Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record on a massive scale, a situation seen in no other European country, and the alleged ‘public benefits’ of which are far outstripped by the scale of destruction of archaeological evidence this Treasure Hunting is doing, day after day, week after week and year after year. Instead of the ‘sustainability of the Treasure Process’ the government and archaeological community should be more concerned about their neglect of their duty to the common heritage (set out in the Valetta Convention) to curb this wanton archaeological looting and the antiquities market it fuels. The only difference between this and the looting in the Middle East is that in Britain, there are no proper laws to stop it. We need those laws now. It has also become a carte blanche for legitimising, promoting and encouraging Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record on a massive scale, a situation seen in no other European country, and the alleged ‘public benefits’ of which are far outstripped by the scale of destruction of archaeological evidence this Treasure Hunting is doing, day after day, week after week and year after year. Instead of the ‘sustainability of the Treasure Process’ the government and archaeological community should be more concerned about their neglect of their duty to the common heritage (set out in the Valetta Convention) to curb this wanton archaeological looting and the antiquities market it fuels. The only difference between this and the looting in the Middle East is that in Britain, there are no proper laws to stop it. We need those laws now.